Daniel Peterson Rips It Up

[MiserereNobis]

I can attend the catholic church. I see the priest quite often. Lets say that I have a question about catholic doctrine. Do I write him a letter about it, 5 pages long? Or do I see him in person? And if the priest says to me that they sent my letter to the bishop and the bishop doesn't respond and yet, I see the bishop during high mass...do I ask him for an interview or do I stew over the matter and eventually write a letter to the vatican to the pope himself?  And if his secretary responds in kind, do I resign from the catholic church?

 

I don't think so. However, I just may visit the priest or the bishop in the first place. But I really doubt that they could answer all questions that I may have. They are just human beings too.

 

People write to the Vatican all the time about doctrinal issues.  You can see the reply letters posted all over the internet, too

[MichelleD]

 If the letter is real, the secretary should be called in to face the music.

What do you mean by "called in to face the music"? Who should call him in? The first presidency?

[Scott Lloyd]

People write to the Vatican all the time about doctrinal issues. You can see the reply letters posted all over the internet, too

I'm thinking the Vatican is a fairly big place.

We're talking about people writing to and expecting a personal reply from one of three (or, if it's to an apostle, one of 12) men who already have weighty administrative duties.

[MiserereNobis]

I'm thinking the Vatican is a fairly big place.

We're talking about people writing to and expecting a personal reply from one of three (or, if it's to an apostle, one of 12) men who already have weighty administrative duties.

 

Yes, the Pope obviously rarely answers the mail directly -- though sometimes he does like to call people on the phone to respond to their letters

[ALarson]

Yes, the Pope obviously rarely answers the mail directly -- though sometimes he does like to call people on the phone to respond to their letters

Very cool.  I really am impressed with Pope Francis.  The more I learn about him, the more I like him.  He's a great example of how to show Christlike love.

[why me]

 

why me, do you still believe "the secretary should be called in to face the music"?  If so, why?

I haven't made up my mind yet. But I do think that the system is flawed and yet, since there are so many people pasting their personal messages and letters from the first presidency and from the GAs all over exmormon boards I can understand their shyness not to write themselves. I am afraid that the lds leadership is in a pickle jar. For some strange reason, members actually believe that no matter what is written in a letter it must have come from god or god is out to lunch when a GA has written it. I have no idea how it has come to this sad state of affairs. And when a GA disappoints in a letter or even when a bishop disappoints or a SP disappoints, it is time to resign one's membership. How strange is that?

 

I do believe that the letter could have been better written and not included the disappointment at the end of it. But...as long as members believe that when a GA says that it is time for lunch it must be god talking, they cannot win this game.

[why me]

Yes, the Pope obviously rarely answers the mail directly -- though sometimes he does like to call people on the phone to respond to their letters

However, I must ask just how the media found that he made that phone call. At least now the pope is back on track with saying that satan is real.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pope-francis-issues-dire-warning-satan-real-article-1.1754388

 

My catholic friends were believing that there is no hell because god is love and compassionate.

[halconero]

Yes, the Pope obviously rarely answers the mail directly -- though sometimes he does like to call people on the phone to respond to their letters

As do ours. Elder Bednar called my roommate about 2 weeks ago and talked with him for about 2 hours in response to some worries, doubts and questions he had concerning same-sex attraction.

[halconero]

I haven't made up my mind yet. But I do think that the system is flawed and yet, since there are so many people pasting their personal messages and letters from the first presidency and from the GAs all over exmormon boards I can understand their shyness not to write themselves. I am afraid that the lds leadership is in a pickle jar. For some strange reason, members actually believe that no matter what is written in a letter it must have come from god or god is out to lunch when a GA has written it. I have no idea how it has come to this sad state of affairs. And when a GA disappoints in a letter or even when a bishop disappoints or a SP disappoints, it is time to resign one's membership. How strange is that?

I do believe that the letter could have been better written and not included the disappointment at the end of it. But...as long as members believe that when a GA says that it is time for lunch it must be god talking, they cannot win this game.

As I mentioned in my above post, Elder Bendar called and talked with my roommate for about 2 hours a couple weeks ago in response to his worries, doubts, and questions concerning homosexuality. I won't repeat the conversation, in respect of the privacy of both.

One thing I will relate is Elder Bednar's caution that my friend be careful with what he shared and with whom he shared it. He said that people take his words and actions out of context, misconstrue them, and degrade both him, his wife and family all the time.

[Tacenda]

I haven't made up my mind yet. But I do think that the system is flawed and yet, since there are so many people pasting their personal messages and letters from the first presidency and from the GAs all over exmormon boards I can understand their shyness not to write themselves. I am afraid that the lds leadership is in a pickle jar. For some strange reason, members actually believe that no matter what is written in a letter it must have come from god or god is out to lunch when a GA has written it. I have no idea how it has come to this sad state of affairs. And when a GA disappoints in a letter or even when a bishop disappoints or a SP disappoints, it is time to resign one's membership. How strange is that?

I do believe that the letter could have been better written and not included the disappointment at the end of it. But...as long as members believe that when a GA says that it is time for lunch it must be god talking, they cannot win this game.

This is why saying we have a living prophet can work against us. Instead we should go entirely by scripture and personal revelation. But what do I know, our church is founded upon a living prophet and sets us apart from the rest, personally I think it puts a middle person in between the Saviour and ourselves alot of the time. A place I think even the prophet would rather not be.

[Craig in Austin]

Yep, but not in Utah. Only one party to the recording needs to know it is occurring.

 

However, this is video *and* audio. Video recording laws are different than audio recording laws, and I'm not sure what they are for Utah.

 

-Allen

I'm not an attorney, but I found this site for Utah's laws on recording.  Perhaps the section on "hidden cameras" would apply. If so, this would be a misdemeanor offense.   

 

Quote:

"It is a misdemeanor to install or use a hidden camera or audio recorder in a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from intrusion or surveillance, and to use a device for recording sounds originating in the place that would not ordinarily be audible or comprehensible outside. Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-9-402, 76-9-401. The law, however, does not criminalize the use of recording devices for other purposes in areas to which the public has access or there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (i.e., filming conversations on public streets or a hotel lobby). - See more at: http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/state-state-guide/utah#sthash.t7N8LXwe.dpuf"

[Calm]

This is why saying we have a living prophet can work against us. Instead we should go entirely by scripture and personal revelation. But what do I know, our church is founded upon a living prophet and sets us apart from the rest, personally I think it puts a middle person in between the Saviour and ourselves alot of the time.

How is a living prophet anymore between us than the dead prophets in the scriptures?

 

There were those in the time of Jesus who apparently didn't feel the need to have him around because they had their scriptures and dead prophets to refer to.

[halconero]

This is why saying we have a living prophet can work against us. Instead we should go entirely by scripture and personal revelation. But what do I know, our church is founded upon a living prophet and sets us apart from the rest, personally I think it puts a middle person in between the Saviour and ourselves alot of the time. A place I think even the prophet would rather not be.

 

The epistles of Peter describe church members screwing up the words of Paul, taking them out of context, and using them to justify not having faith. Should that living prophet and apostle not have written his letters to the various congregations of his time?

 

Edit: Peter, not John. Specifically 2 Peter 3

Edited April 13, 2014 by halconero

[MiserereNobis]

As do ours. Elder Bednar called my roommate about 2 weeks ago and talked with him for about 2 hours in response to some worries, doubts and questions he had concerning same-sex attraction.

 

Cool.  It's always good for religious leaders to take time for their flocks. 

 

P.S.  Did he tell him when Christ's birthday was, too?

[omni]

As do ours. Elder Bednar called my roommate about 2 weeks ago and talked with him for about 2 hours in response to some worries, doubts and questions he had concerning same-sex attraction.

 

Very surprising, but very cool.

[cinepro]

I'm not an attorney, but I found this site for Utah's laws on recording.  Perhaps the section on "hidden cameras" would apply. If so, this would be a misdemeanor offense.   

 

Quote:

"It is a misdemeanor to install or use a hidden camera or audio recorder in a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from intrusion or surveillance, and to use a device for recording sounds originating in the place that would not ordinarily be audible or comprehensible outside. Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-9-402, 76-9-401. The law, however, does not criminalize the use of recording devices for other purposes in areas to which the public has access or there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (i.e., filming conversations on public streets or a hotel lobby). - See more at: http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/state-state-guide/utah#sthash.t7N8LXwe.dpuf"

 

I'm not an attorney, but I don't think this would apply to someone giving a speech in a public church building. 

 

This doesn't mean the Church can't ask people not to film inside the buildings, or someone can't be asked not to do it by the organizers of a meeting, but it wouldn't be criminal.

[why me]

.

One thing I will relate is Elder Bednar's caution that my friend be careful with what he shared and with whom he shared it. He said that people take his words and actions out of context, misconstrue them, and degrade both him, his wife and family all the time.

This is why I think that phone calls are better than letters. A letter written to a GA can be a set up with the person salivating the opportunity to post it on NoM or somewhere else. I still have no idea why someone would write a 5 page letter to a bishop and expect a long reply or even to the SP. A phone call is just a click away.

[K-2]

The Church has been suspected of involvement in intrusive recording as well:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=wYIzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PTIHAAAAIBAJ&pg=5916,2074262&dq=mormon+wiretapping&hl=en

[cognitiveharmony]

Hmmmm... 11 pages and not one person responded to the OP regarding horses being C14 dated to the time of Christ in the americas? No takers?

[why me]

This is why saying we have a living prophet can work against us. Instead we should go entirely by scripture and personal revelation. But what do I know, our church is founded upon a living prophet and sets us apart from the rest, personally I think it puts a middle person in between the Saviour and ourselves alot of the time. A place I think even the prophet would rather not be.

I think that expectations can work against us. But we shouldn't allow the critics to get away with the idea that no matter what a GA says it is from god. This is what is harmful. In fact it is quite crazy. When i listened to the interview of spencer w. kimball's son about his father he made it clear that his dad was a dad, a human being who had a calling. I did not get the impression that the son had in his mind that every word his dad said was from god. A prophet is a prophet when called to be one. But most of time they are just human beings with a calling.

[BCSpace]

Hmmmm... 11 pages and not one person responded to the OP regarding horses being C14 dated to the time of Christ in the americas? No takers?

 

Sure.  But did he himself specify C14 dating as his personal explanation or did he say it's one of two out of an unknown number of possible arguments?

 

But I am also curious if you or anyone else know what the 'overwhelming evidence' is that Mike Norton, in the first 40 seconds of the first video listed in the OP, claims to exist that JS was having sex with 14 (about a minute in he switches to 'little girls') year old girls?

And also directly after that question Mike's claim is that JS supposedly married the wives of nine men while those men were on their missions.  What evidence is there for that?

In addition, what about Norton's claim in the second video that science refutes the BoM when it's impossible for science to do so unless there is evidence against and not just an absence of evidence in some cases?

Edited April 14, 2014 by BCSpace

[frank_jessop]

Hmmmm... 11 pages and not one person responded to the OP regarding horses being C14 dated to the time of Christ in the americas? No takers?

I started a thread on the topic of C14 dating and horses in the Americas.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm aware, "cognitive harmony," that a number of my always fair, cautious, and charitable critics over at your board are really taking me to task about my off-the-cuff response to a  question about Book of Mormon horses.

 

They're misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting my position.

 

I'll have something to say, or something to publish, about the matter at some point.  It's not high on my list of urgent priorities at the moment.  But, just for the record, I don't feel any need right now to correct or apologize for what I said in that unethically recorded video.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Daniel Peterson

[cognitiveharmony]

I'm aware, "cognitive harmony," that a number of my always fair, cautious, and charitable critics over at your board are really taking me to task about my off-the-cuff response to a  question about Book of Mormon horses.

 

They're misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting my position.

 

I'll have something to say, or something to publish, about the matter at some point.  It's not high on my list of urgent priorities at the moment.  But, just for the record, I don't feel any need right now to correct or apologize for what I said in that unethically recorded video.

 

Fair enough, would you mind sharing your source for this comment in the interim? BTW, my comments are in no way supportive of the ambush by Mike Norton. I'm solely interested in the horse bones dating to Book of Mormon times claim as I know that you've published similar comments previously.

[Scott Lloyd]

The Church has been suspected of involvement in intrusive recording as well:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=wYIzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PTIHAAAAIBAJ&pg=5916,2074262&dq=mormon+wiretapping&hl=en

For those who won't bother to click on the link, I'll point out that the lead paragraph of that very old news story says that the Church denied it.

 

The story is from 1975. That's nearly 40 years ago. Do you have anything more recent showing that there is anything to this other than an accusation?

 

Anybody can make an accusation regardless of merit. How much time has to pass before an accusation that has never been substantiated is properly left in the past and not dredged up as innuendo?

Edited April 14, 2014 by Scott Lloyd